I thought I posted my translation of PHerc. 1005. Cassius , feel free to move this elsewhere. I have not read this through, so I am not vouching for the fluidity or readability of this. Consider this a rough draft for others to work on . Here you go...
Philodemus: Against [?]; Addressed to [?]* …
https://papyri.info/dclp/62437 (P.Herc. 1005)
The title (see the end off the translation where titles were affixed on the papyri) is mostly missing. The only surviving text is:
Φιλοδήμου
Πρὸς τοὺς
Which is merely:
Philodemou (the author’s name, Philodemus in the genitive case, so “(a work) Of Philodemus”
And ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ which is the preposition προς and the accusative definite article. The preposition followed by the accusative case article (which, in turn, would be followed by an accusative case noun) implies “Against” or “Towards”
See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…057:entry=pro/s
Various scholars have suggested reconstructions of what word comes after the article, but they are all just that: reconstructions and conjectures. There is NO way of knowing what word is missing. It is, at best, reasonable to argue that Philodemus is arguing against someone or some group, presumably those who are not attending to the study of the Epicurean texts.
In any case, the text is instructive, at the very least, for encouraging those who call themselves “Epicurean” to attend to the extant texts.
[Fragments 1 to 80 inconsistent]
[Frg. 81]... Under the archonship of A- - - : “However, concerning [books], these books, it is for your health that I have sent them for you through their intermediary.” How can one [not] see precisely that it is necessary, when discussing, to express absolutely everything, [while in] books sometimes...?
[Frg. 82 to 85 inconsistent]
[Frg.86]...[standing] away from obscurity and counterfeiting, so as to expose all things with measure, without neglecting anything that rises to the level of the whole nor, despite everything, having [never] abandoned the detail [precisely]. On the other hand, with regard to utility, a very similar [reputation] also attaches, in a different way to wealth, to works which offer utility by the [pattern (French: schema)] of what is therein. [exposed]. [And] it is by this means indeed that …
[Frg. 87 to 89 inconsistent]
[Frg. 90] ... Compare to this what [we learn from] Epicurus' listeners, and [which is characterized] by power and, if not at least, by will and ardor (French: une volonté et une ardeur; κα̣ὶ̣ βουλήσει̣ [will, volition] καὶ̣ προθ̣υμίαι [properly, "before-passion" referring to someone who is already being willing, i.e. an eager disposition which is pre-inclined (already "ready and willing").]) (these are one and the same thing for Epicurus) that manifest themselves both in word and in deed, and deploy your efforts in this direction. For besides, if you don't aim for that and don't harm it,...
[Frg. 91 to 106 inconsistent].
[Frg. 107] … [if] we compare the styles of those who edited treatises after the death of Hermarchus and even, if you will, after the disappearance of all direct disciples of Epicurus, in order to ... [Frg. 108] ... from Pythocles [missing 3 lines] of Zeno...
[Frg, 109 inconsistent]
[Frg. 110] a copy of the Physicist of Antisthenes ...
[Frg. 111]... the Socrates of Aristippus, the Praise [Elegy] of Plato of Speusippus, the Analytics and the Nature of Aristotle, all works that we [missing 1 word] And again, under the archonship of Euboule: “The letter …”
[Frg, 112 and 113 inconsistent]
[Fr. 114]. And again: “Don't worry, [missing 1 proper name?], neither surveys nor other sophisticated [treatises], but come right away [join me], from which you will have [collected] all these books.” Then, under the archonate of Isée (Ἰσαΐου; Don: possibly Isaeus, 285 BCE), [this is what he writes] to the sons of Menoikeus: “... “
[Frg. 115 inconsistent]
[Frg. 116] "overwhelmed by the [feasts] which at Teos last all day, before playing the sophist while the one who reads the books of Anaxagoras and Empedocles also indulges in endless subtleties on these texts.” And again: “He who in Teos gathered the ‘Hermocopids’ (Ἑρμοκοπίδας) [to] study Democritus and Leucippus...” [Don note: Strabo said Epicurus grew up in Samos and then Teos http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…us-eng1:14.1.18 ; Hermocpids were those who vandalized the Herms around the Athens. Unsure if there was a similar incident in Teos.]
[Frg. 117]. If they [did not question] each of our institutions orally and in writing, would we address [strong] reprimands to those who do not [hold] [on the grounds that] familiars of our Guides saw fit at the time, to praise people devoid of knowledge? Moreover, this is rather today, certainly the fact of people who have benefited from a teaching... [1 column illegible] [2] ... without addressing, once again, reproaches to those who advance some good argument and know a very large number of things in a way convincingly, [then in truth] we will gently back off.
I therefore recognize, as I rightly said at the beginning, that among those who pride themselves on the title of Epicureans, there are those who produce, both orally and in writing, many compilations, of statements of their own which do not agree with the body of our doctrine, and certain assertions which they have extracted from it in a superficial and in a rushed manner/hastily (French: à la va-vite), regardless of ... [3] the exactness which characterizes us, us and the people who [missing 2 lines]. But the thing will be possible, [on the condition that this] and the activities exercised by [all those who], after Hermarchus, joined our school, it is shown that the latter wanted them and carried them out in the same way - - which I don't think will happen until all humans are black, short and deformed. (πάντας ἀνθρώπους μέλανα[ς] εἶναι καὶ μικροὺς καὶ δι̣[εσ]τραμμένους) [Book footnote suggests a reference to "Pygmies"]
Besides, if they had not named themselves by analogy with those who do not [reject] the books... [4] of those who call themselves [Epicureans]. In fact, one of his characters, whom we have known, on whom we have even made an in-depth investigation and who is precisely (this is what he affirms) "the authentic reader" because he [collects a multitude] of treatise titles, despite having [large] numbers of anthologies! He has not the slightest knowledge of the detailed contents of the thoughts, and, as for the prescriptions to follow, he [transforms] them into headings, like the one who is said to have learned to pilot a ship (κυβ[ερνήτ]η̣ν̣) from a book. And in all circumstances…
[5] ... remembering what [you have been taught] and the happiness (that you experienced), take this into account again: [have high hopes] concerning the future and [believe that] the fourfold remedy is powerful precisely in all circumstances: "Nothing to fear from the divinity, nothing to apprehend from death! And it is easy to procure what is good, easy to bear what is dreadful!" As for the reasonings by analogy that he draws, he says, from books, you will know that these formulas are correspondences of twelve or fifteen... [6] ... [on] the questions to be explored, he has provided the most luminous explanations possible, and thinks the same thing [in] all [cases; and] it is in this way, that we can draw [from books] a very great wisdom.
He also shows the memory he retains [of the disturbing facts contained in] books, repeating over and over again that in our doctrine there is mention of Leontion and company, that Nicidion was the beloved of Idomeneus, Mammarion that of Leonteus, Deme[tri]a that of Hermarchus, and that the pedagogue of Pythocles, Polyaenus, was such [that] … [7] … [If] we, who give [to our Guides the names [of] [missing 1 word] and, in a word, of [wise men], are not under the authority, assuredly, of men who have deserved to be remembered and to benefit from the recognition not of one person, but of everyone,and if we do not flatter ourselves with this authority with one of our friends, let us turn away, as they say, misfortune on the wild goats! And if we designate by these names, or very similar names, the one who has learned to understand in a methodical way the content of the books of our Guides so as to say out loud, precisely, that... [columns 8 and 9 illegible]
[10] … [In his book] On The Dissemblance of Atoms, [Zeno treated] of their declension as well as of the primary origin of the aggregate, and of [supreme] fulfillment and happiness in his books On the Ends. ([Πε]ρ̣[ὶ τῆς τῶν ἀ]τ̣ό̣[μων ἀ]ν̣ομοι[ό]τητο̣ς̣ καὶ πε̣ρ̣ὶ παρεγκλίσεως καὶ τῆς τ̣οῦ ἀθρόου προκαταρχῆ[ς], καὶ περὶ τελειώσ̣ε̣ως̣ [ἄκρας] καὶ τ̣[ῆ]ς̣ [εὐδαιμ]ον[ίας ἐν] τοῖς Περὶ τελῶν. Zeno’s name doesn’t appear in the manuscript, so I'd suggest looking at Epicurus's titles, too. Note that there are at least two titles mentioned here: the one on the atoms covered "their declension as well as of the primary origin of the aggregate" and On the Telos covered "supreme] fulfillment and happiness.")
And, in truth, to answer the accusations brought against the discourse and of Epicurus and his entourage, he made use of the very contents of their books, from which he quotes innumerable passages on each subject: such as On Grammar, On Systematic Inquiry (Περὶ ἱστορίας), On Proverbs and the like (Περὶ παροιμιῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων), On Speaking Style/Diction (Περὶ λ[έ]ξεως), On [Useful] Poems (Περὶ ποιημάτων χρή[σεως), On Piety (Περὶ εὐσεβε̣[ίας]) [one line missing]...
[11] [However, Zeno had good reason to ?] consider, in connection with many [writings of our school], that a doubt hung over the opinions which were those of our great men at the origins [of the Garden]; thus [he designated for Epicurus] certain letters, the summary on celestial phenomena To Pythocles ([Πρὸς Πυ]θ̣οκλέα περὶ̣ μ̣[ε]τεώρων ἐπιτομῆςand) and On The Virtues (Περὶ ἀρ̣[ετ]ῶ̣[ν]) (Footnote in book: These are the works of Epicurus, although his name is not mentioned and the last title is not otherwise attested.), as well as those writings attributed to Metrodorus which are The Rules of Conduct, the Testimonies and, more certainly, the second book of Against Plato's "Gorgias"; the books Against the Rhetoricians and The Moon attributed to Polyaenus, and those attributed to Hermarchus. Moreover, he made a selection precisely [missing 1 word] [from the] writings ... [12] ... of his own expressions both elsewhere and in the [sixth book] of The Aristaia, the man who was very proud of having compared what we read in Epicurus and among these people, from the [strong] observation that, immediately after him, the expressions of the recent [Epicureans] are precisely quite different, even believed that it was a very great injustice, or rather even a sacrilege, to report to him, to him, [such expressions], since, to put it in a nutshell, ... [13] ... Driven out of Athens at the time of the capture of the city [Book footnote: circa 87/86 BCE; Don: by Roman general Sulla], [Zéno] precisely addressed a letter in a copy to our sympathizers, in which he ordered them to save Demaratos [who had become] an Epicurean; and each of them did what necessity demanded.
He who, in truth, has presented these facts and many others as characteristic marks of a veneration close to that which fools devote to the gods, by posing as being the truth even something (je ne sais quoi) simplistic, ... [14] ... things deserving of recognition, but not … Of this, indeed, other Epicureans [have been able to experience; it is besides it was in their company that I became one of the most faithful devotees of Apo[llodo]rus and Zeno, as long as the latter survived him, and, after the death of Zeno, a tireless laudator, so are all his virtues and, I will add, the divine delirium and transports inspired in him by Epicurus. [καύ̣χαις τε καὶ θεοφ̣[ο]ρίαις, both boasts and inspirations]
Well, the most lamentable thing about the majority of Epicureans [and] their inexcusable refusal to work on the books is this: … [15] … [they listen to the calumnies peddled ?] commonly on the account of our great men too --- even to the point of making all kinds of remarks, and the worst, on their way of life as well as on the bonds of friendship, hugs/embraces, and conversations they had with each one — as if they had not read the body of the doctrine. Our great men must, at the same time, be taken for public enemies and see themselves reproached for their morals, since they had precisely all the vices! And since, among people who are absolutely not philosophers, there are hardly any who are conciliatory and good, although there are some among those who devote themselves to philosophy according to other schools, or else ...
[16] ... The people able to pay attention to books are those who, because they have been lucky enough to attend a school that befits Greeks, not [missing 1 word], and are trained in academic disciplines, precisely explain the words of men who have taken care to elucidate what is obscure. Having studied like philosophers - at least from childhood to old age - similar considerations at least, for lack of anything else, they composed very numerous writings which are very interesting for their precision. On the other hand, those who are slaves and do hard work, or who are deprived of education, and who have not learned to read and write, ... [17] ... [when] they invoke, as [applying to people from among us] (I do not speak of those who have withdrawn from the world, but of those who are immersed in it), a letter addressed by our Guides to unwary sympathizers. (Besides, if the accusations we make against them are false, who'll they deny us by doing even one of the things we just talked about! But [they will say:] "We can, but we don't want it," as someone said of me, perhaps in mockery.)
And, in a way, what Epicurus says is, from our point of view a reality, it is inconceivable that the goods according to nature are [difficult] to procure. [18] [5 lines illegible] … And, indeed, in order to prevent our first writing from exceeding the right measure, it is in three main headings that we will conclude the first act of resistance to which you have led us.
In fact, since -- as you know -- they don't allow everything to be repelled altogether (they are indeed, for the most part, invulnerable to the arrows fired at them), but only those who have no little intelligence and reactivity... [19] ......;
...; and if, of course, we defend ourselves by [applying ourselves to compose] writings addressed to them, in the case of [our] comments we [discover] that it is not [isolated individuals] who are the subject of the writings that we compose.
Because, surely, the first move of the first was not such and when they converse with people who are misleading themselves or who are misleading collectively, they do not pursue the discussion with that people, nor either, for sure, when it is with those people from outside who are incapable of [reaching an agreement]... [20] … [when one has a solid formation?] precisely in reading and [writing, one] is able to take an interest in [a large number] of books about which, together, we [proceed has a] thorough review. Therefore, whoever oversteps the proper measure or falls short of it will, because he engages in inappropriate behavior, be cataloged (in accordance with the whole school) as not being [admitted], justly, among the competent interlocutors.
Those to whom, for my part, I address themselves, they are people like those whom I have caught red-handed and whom I am at the moment trying to unmask, because they are of this sort [missing some lines].
Φιλοδήμου [Of Philodemus]
Πρὸς τοὺς [Directed against …?]
